Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
of Chemistry (RSC) (FC 36)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UK universities are world-class in terms of
science, engineering and technology (SET). Research and science
education in UK HEIs make a strong, positive contribution to our
economy and enrich our society.
Maintaining a strong science base and supporting
innovation is essential if we are to address the challenges that
face our society and achieve a balanced and sustainable economic
recovery.
We should increase the level of funding for
R&D to exceed those of our international competitors. Even
short term cuts to funding will significantly damage our research
capability, stifle innovation, reduce productivity, deter investment
and reduce the economic prosperity of the UK.
SET departments in our universities should be
fully funded and all funding for SET teaching, research, facilities
and equipment should be ring-fenced.
The economic impact of research must be measured
over decades, it must include foreign investment and the benefits
of a scientifically-literate workforce, and it must look at the
entire pipeline of skills, from schools to universities and industry.
1. The process for deciding where to make
cuts in SET spending
1. The future of the UK economy lies in
the growth of knowledge-based industries and the development of
a highly skilled workforce because the relatively high cost of
UK labour will prevent us from creating a significant number of
jobs for unskilled or semi-skilled people.
2. Our ability to compete in the global
knowledge economy depends upon the health of the entire skills
pipeline with education in schools and universities providing
a steady supply of talented, highly-skilled individuals who will
become the next generation of scientists and engineers and members
of a wider, scientifically literate workforce. Continuous, long
term investment in SET must not only be maintained but steadily
increased to meet this challenge.
3. The strength of our Higher Education
(HE) sector is one of our great success stories, employing nearly
170,000 staff,[27]
making the UK the most popular destination in the EU for foreign
investment and students. In 2007-08, over 350,000 students from
other countries chose to study at UK HEIs.[28]
UK HEIs deliver excellent value for money, being both highly productive
and efficient. The proportion of our national income that the
state spends on our HEIs, at 0.90%, is lower than that in Germany,
the United States and France, which spend 0.94%, 1.01% and 1.15%
respectively.[29]
4. SET in our universities is particularly effective,
with UK research ranking second only to the United States in terms
of publication citations.[30]
Also, it is very efficient. UK chemistry and physics departments
have already made significant efficiency savings by increasing
student:staff ratios and lowering departmental space per member
of academic staff.[31]
Further cuts in the name of efficiency would be very detrimental,
compromising the quality of performance and the international
standing of UK science and technology.
5. The recent International Review of Chemistry
highlighted the excellent state of equipment and infrastructure
within UK universities—"UK chemistry derives enormous
strength from recent large investments in infrastructure, shared
equipment and national user facilities"[32]—in
this respect, the RSC believes the UK government should be congratulated.
However, maintaining this excellence requires continuing, sustained
capital investment consonant with depreciation and, if spending
cuts were to be applied, here the benefits of past government
investment would be rapidly destroyed.
6. Currently, many of the most significant
discoveries are made by scientists with a deep, fundamental knowledge
of their specialism working in multi-disciplinary teams with experts
from other areas. For this to continue, we must preserve our ability
to conduct ground-breaking research and development across all
scientific disciplines.
7. Reducing our investment in SET would
be completely counter to the national interest; this would result
in fewer students being able to study the sciences, a poorly skilled
workforce, less ground-breaking research in our universities,
and valuable commercial investment going elsewhere. Instead, the
UK government should follow the examples of the United States[33]
and Germany,[34]
which are both aggressively increasing their investments in SET.
We should be planning for significant growth in SET in order to
rebalance the economy and lay the foundations for our future prosperity.
2. What evidence is there on the feasibility
or effectiveness of estimating the economic impact of research,
both from a historical perspective (for QR funding) and looking
to the future (for Research Council grants)
8. As indicated below, any methodology which
is used to estimate the economic impact of research must take
account of timescale between discovery and commercialisation,
which may take many years. Also, it must assess the economic benefit
from a more productive population, with increased revenues to
the individual and to the Exchequer.
9. Many of the revolutionary discoveries
that have led to today's major products were made decades ago.
For example, liquid crystals were originally discovered in the
19th Century. However, it was not until 1960 that their potential
to provide light-weight, flat panel displays of low power consumption
was appreciated, and it took another 12 years for a liquid crystal
with suitable physical properties to be designed. The worldwide
market for LCD TVs now generates more than £40 billion in
annual revenues.[35]
10. The Human Genome Project began in 1990,
and was completed in 2003 at a cost of several billion pounds.[36]
As a result of this investment, massive improvements in high-throughput
DNA sequencing have been achieved, driven entirely by advances
in nucleic acid chemistry. It is now possible to sequence an individual
genome in less than a week and for ca £30,000.[37]
This is the fruit of at least 50 years of sustained investment
since the ground-breaking days of Crick and Watson at the Cavendish
Laboratory in Cambridge. It has huge implications for the understanding
of major diseases and the developing market in "personalised
genomics".
11. As these examples demonstrate, any attempt
to assess the likely economic impact of research must appreciate
the entire research process and the timescale from discovery to
economic reward. We refer the reader to a response to a recent
review which emphasises the importance of a suitable balance of
funding between applied and fundamental research.[38]
12. Chemical science spin-out companies
originating from university research have a strong track record
in using public funds to realise commercial success. A recent
RSC study showed that 55% of these companies initially relied
heavily on funding from the EPSRC, but only 10% of them now rely
on Research Council funding[39]—a
good example of far-sighted government investment, yielding commercial
fruit.
13. In addition to direct economic benefits
resulting from scientific discovery, the economy will be strengthened
by the scientific contribution to healthcare and medicine necessary
to ensure a healthy workforce. Furthermore, education and scientific
research lead to a scientifically literate workforce which is
able to understand and exploit scientific knowledge. A greater
proportion of science graduates pursue careers that require a
graduate qualification[40]
as compared with those from other subjects. Over a lifetime, the
economic value to the individual of completing a degree stands
at ca £129,000, and for chemistry and physics graduates this
rises to ca £187,000. The additional taxation revenues to
the Exchequer over a working lifetime exceed £130,000.[41]
14. Many of the blockbuster medicines in
the list of world top twenty best selling drugs were invented
in the UK by chemists whose doctoral studies were funded by EPSRC
and its precursors. A recent study estimated that at their peak,
11 of these drugs generated sales of over £15 billion, as
well as obvious benefits to patient health.[42]
3. The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions
15. The retention of a strong UK science
base relies on the maintenance of high standards in both research
and education. Any reduction in funding for one activity will
impair the ability of an HEI to deliver the other.
16. Recent data show that both research
and teaching in physics and chemistry departments are not fully
funded: in 2007-08, research activity resulted in an average deficit
of 36.7% of income, while the teaching deficit was 9%. The average
overall deficit for chemistry departments across the UK was 31.3%.[43]
17. As both research and teaching are loss-making,
further funding cuts to either demand-led (teaching) or research-led
institutions would reduce the quality of both teaching and research
and compromise the standing of UK science. HEFCE has acknowledged
this risk by pledging an extra £25 million in annual funding
to support subjects recognised as being strategically important
and vulnerable. We welcome this measure, which has reduced the
average deficit for teaching to 9% of income. However, there is
still enormous financial pressure on vice-chancellors who may
be tempted to close SET departments (which inevitably attract
higher overhead costs than Arts and Humanities faculties) in order
to reduce costs.
18. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy
to support a strong national science base, cutting funding may
bring about the closure of SET departments on an unplanned, case-by-case
basis. This will create regions in the UK with no provision for
students who wish to study SET subjects. Those from less advantaged
backgrounds who have to live at home for financial reasons will
be unable to study these subjects, irrespective of their ability.
Also, local businesses will be unable to benefit from the knowledge
and expertise of universities and regional economic development
will be impaired.
4. The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts
19. The RSC recognises the need for central
funding as an important element in supporting a strong science
base.
20. The RSC regrets the decision by the
STFC to reduce the funding for ISIS, which will result in a 50%
reduction in capacity. Given the crucial importance of this facility
to a wide range of cutting edge research, including improved drug
delivery and the development of advanced materials for hydrogen
storage, solar energy conversion and improved battery technology,
the reduction in capacity greatly weakens the UK's global scientific
competitiveness. The STFC should be supporting this and other
such facilities and recognising the central role they have as
a hub for multi-disciplinary projects that are able to push back
the boundaries of knowledge, generate spin-out companies and attract
international investment.
21. Funding must be provided to maintain
and run these facilities. The announcement by the STFC to cut
funding for studentships and fellowships by 25% compromises the
ability to undertake research. By underfunding support for equipment
and personnel, ground-breaking research is jeopardised and efficient
use of these facilities cannot be achieved.
22. A recent review by the EPSRC in partnership
with Learned Societies and other Research Councils urged that
support for shared facilities should be a national priority.[44]
Similar facilities in Europe are running at close to full capacity
and it is interesting to note that, in contrast with domestic
projects, the STFC have committed to maintain subscriptions to
international projects as a top priority.[45]
5. The scope of the STFC review announced
on 16 December and currently underway
23. Recent budget cuts by the STFC have
demonstrated poor planning and a lack of foresight. The process
by which the STFC reached these decisions should be reviewed.
24. The RSC recommends that the STFC should
identify facilities that are of central importance to UK science
with the intention of transforming and funding them as National
Shared Facilities. The announcement on 16 December has seen a
dangerous shift of focus away from particle physics, astronomy
and nuclear science. The RSC believes that facilities that support
these areas should be fully funded where research can be shown
to be internationally competitive.
6. The operation and definition of the science
budget ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be
a similar ring-fence for the Higher Education Funding Council
for England research budget and departmental research budgets
25. The improvement in the funding for SET
subjects provided by HEFCE in recent years has allowed more undergraduate
and postgraduate students to be educated and enhanced the quality
of the education and training provided. Whilst this is welcomed,
it must be remembered that the resources provided are still inadequate
(see the answers to questions 3 and 8) and, given the autonomy
of University vice-chancellors, the funds provided for SET can
be diverted to support other activities.
26. Therefore, the RSC consider it essential
for HEFCE to ring-fence the funding designated for SET teaching,
research, and the associated facilities and equipment. However,
the RSC urges caution in respect of ring-fencing only the HEFCE
research budget since this could have unintended consequences
on teaching, given the synergic interactions between these two
activities.
7. Whether the Government is achieving the
objectives it set out in the "Science and innovation investment
framework 2004-2014: next steps", including, for example,
making progress on the supply of high quality science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) graduates to achieve its overall
ambitions for UK science and innovation
27. The world-leading position of UK science
is quite remarkable, given the relatively low level of spending
on SET. A step change in attitude towards science and education
is required if this position is to be maintained and the aims
of the Framework are to be fulfilled.
28. Overall spending on research and development
as a percentage of GDP is a useful measure of the national commitment
to science. In 2000, EU governments agreed that this figure should
reach 3.0% of GDP by 2010, as part of the Lisbon Agenda. However,
the more modest targets set out in the UK Science and Innovation
Framework (2.5% of GDP by 2014) are yet to be realised, both in
public funding and in industrial investment (which has a target
percentage of 1.7% of GDP). Public expenditure on higher education
as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the OECD.[46]
While the UK has seen a steady rise in scientific funding, particularly
since the science budget was ring fenced, this commitment must
continue to increase in order to bring this to levels which match
those of our competitors and to attract more industrial investment
in R&D.
29. The strength of UK science relies on
a high number of students being taught to the highest quality
to promote excellence. The RSC has raised the issue of standards
in the regulation of education. A competition launched to provide
direct comparison between current science examinations and equivalent
exams in previous years demonstrated that contemporary exams are
considerably easier than in previous decades, resulting in higher
grades being achieved.[47]
These concerns are being investigated by the examinations regulator
Ofqual, who have agreed that there has been "a fall in the
quality of science assessments".[48]
30. A major shortcoming of school science
examinations is that they do not provide sufficient opportunity
for more able students to demonstrate the extent of their abilities.
Furthermore, a recent Government report showed that only 25% of
science teachers have a specialism in chemistry,[49]
and 19% have a specialism in physics. Pupils who are not challenged
are not engaged, and teachers who do not have a deep knowledge
of their subject will struggle to inspire their pupils. This poses
a huge risk to the future of science in the UK, which relies on
a supply of highly skilled scientists and a scientifically literate
work force.
8. Whether the extra student support, which
the Government announced on 20 July 2009 for 10,000 higher education
places, delivered students in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics courses
31. The number of students accepting places
on undergraduate chemistry courses has increased by 28% over the
last six years,[50]
and the recent announcement of funding for a further 10,000 students
to take STEM courses has had little or no effect.
32. The RSC is concerned that there is too
much focus on increasing the number of new STEM students without
addressing quality or providing the required teaching support.
The accompanying cut of 1.36% (HEFCE, July 24) in overall teaching
funding compromises the teaching of these subjects. As a result,
33 of the country's leading HEIs, in the best position to deliver
top-quality STEM qualifications rejected the offer of extra places,
while six opted for a lower number than allocated, pushing the
extra student intake towards other institutions.[51]
33. Although the Government's offer to fund
the extra 10,000 students for courses in STEM subjects appeared
to be a positive development, the accompanying cut in HEFCE teaching
funding suggests that this announcement was made without a clear
strategic plan. Indeed, the list of subjects approved for these
extra 10,000 students included non-STEM areas such as economics,
business studies, management studies, finance, accounting, marketing,
and human resource management.
9. The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit
of funding" for STEM students
34. Any reduction in the unit of funding
would be detrimental to the quality of education and training
provided by all laboratory based subjects, including chemistry.
35. Although the "unit of funding"
measures aim to increase teaching funding for more expensive subject
areas, such as chemistry, the actual cost of running STEM courses
with a significant practical component is higher than the 1.7
ratio that is currently used to weight funding. Some universities
estimate that the real figure for chemistry is at least 2.5. A
permanent solution, long advocated by the RSC, would involve removing
these subjects from Price Group B and increasing their weighting
to a more realistic figure.
36. Undergraduate teaching in the chemical
sciences is already significantly underfunded (see section 3).
Any reduction in the unit of funding will only increase this deficit
and tempt vice-chancellors to make decisions which are not in
the long term interest of the UK given the high economic return
from investments in STEM teaching and research.
37. The RSC welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the
impact of spending cuts on science and technology research.
38. The RSC is the UK Professional Body
for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for
advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over
46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing
business, our activities span education and industry, training,
conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical
sciences to the public.
39. This document represents the views of
the RSC. The RSC's Royal Charter obliges it "to serve the
public interest" by acting in an independent advisory capacity,
and we are happy for this submission to be put into the public
domain at the appropriate stage.
27 Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA] [2009],
Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2007-08 http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=161 Back
28
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA): Students in Higher
Education Institutions, table 6, 2007-08. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1578&Itemid=161. Back
29
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
(2008): Education at a glance: OECD Indicators 2008, table B2.4
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_41266761_1_1_1_1,00.html Back
30
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: International
Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base 2009 http://www.dius.gov.uk/¥/media/publications/I/IntComparativePerformanceUKResearch Back
31
Follow-up Study of the Finances of Chemistry and Physics Departments
in the UK Universities, RSC and IOP, Manuscript in Preparation. Back
32
Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Sciences annual
meeting, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., April
2009 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting Back
33
Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Sciences annual
meeting, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., April
2009 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting Back
34
"Science favoured by German coalition", A. Abbott,
Nature 462, 24, 2009. Back
35
"DisplaySearch Revises Worldwide TV Forecasts", DisplaySearch
2008: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/LCD_TV_Revenue_Expected_to_Fall_YY_for_the_1st_Time.asp Back
36
Oak Ridge National Laboratory website, www.ornl.gov Back
37
Single-molecule sequencing of an individual human genome. D Pushkarev,
N F Neff, S R Quake. Nature Biotechnology. 27, 847-850,
2009. Back
38
Setting Science and Technology Funding Priorities, House of Lords
Science and Technology Select Committee, RSC, 2009 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/strfRoyalSocietyofChemistry.pdf Back
39
Spin Out Companies from UK Chemistry Departments, RSC 2003 http://www.rsc.org/pdf/indusdiv/spinout.pdf Back
40
The Chemical Skills Pipeline, RSC 2009 http://www.rsc.org/images/ChemSkillsPipeline_tcm18-159365.pdf Back
41
The Economic Benefits of Higher Education Qualifications, RSC
and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, January 2005 http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_4149.pdf Back
42
Education and Wealth, Chemistry World, Volume 6, Number 9, September
2009. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2009/September/Educationandwealth.asp Back
43
Follow-up Study of the Finances of Chemistry and Physics Departments
in the UK Universities, RSC and IOP, Manuscript in Preparation. Back
44
Chemistry for the Next Decade and Beyond. EPSRC, IOP, RSC, BBSRC,
MRC, NERC, ABPI, IChemE, Biochemical Society, 2009 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/ChemistryIR2009.pdf Back
45
STFC, Science Programme Prioritisation 2010-15 http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/CouncilNews161209.aspx Back
46
Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators, OECD, 2008 http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_41266761_1_1_1_1,00.html Back
47
The 5-Decade Challenge, RSC, 2008 http://www.rsc.org/images/ExamReport_tcm18-139067.pdf Back
48
The new GCSE science examinations. Findings from the monitoring
of the new GCSE science specifications: 2007 to 2008, Ofqual http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/ofqual-09-4148_GCSE_science_2007_2008_report.pdf Back
49
Mathematics and Science in Secondary Schools. The Deployment of
Teachers and Support Staff to Deliver the Curriculum, DEFS, 2006
http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/m/maths_science_secondaryschools.pdf Back
50
UCAS data 2009. Back
51
Amendment to the funding agreements of 20 July 2009: provisional
distribution of new student places for 2009-10: Annex A, HEFCE,
2009 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2009/cl15_09/annexes Back
| 
